PREFACE.

V

WHEN I wrote the Pamphlet entitled Socrates and Jesus Compared, which I was led to do from the perusal of Xenophon's Memorabilia, in order to form a more distinct idea than I then retained of the subjects and the manner of the teaching of Socrates, and from seeing his character in a different light from that in which it had been usually represented, I had no thoughts of doing any ching more in the same way. But my friends in general approving of the pamphlet, and seeing in the same light with myself the great superiority which it exhibited of the character and teaching of Jesus to that of this most moral, and most celebrated, of all the Grecian philosophers, I was urged to give a similar view of all the Grecian moralists, comparing their principles with those of revelation in general.

At first this appeared to me too great an undertaking at my age, and with increasing infirmities. But finding that my library, notwithstanding the a iv. destruction

destruction of a great part of it at the riots in Birmingham, was so far restored as to contain almost every book that I wanted for the purpose, having a predilection for the work, and abundant leisure in my present retired situation, I reperused the writings of all the Grecian moralists that have come to us, making all the extracts that I thought necessary, and then composed the different parts of the work with which I now present the reader; It was however not done in the order in which they are now arranged, but as they appeared to me of the most importance, giving directions to my son, that if I died before the work was compleated, he would publish what I had finished; having taken the precaution to transcribe, and prepare for the press, each of the separate parts before I undertook any other. In this manner, with much more ease, and I will add, more to iny satisfaction, than I expected, I compleated my design.

My labour was the shorter, as I had nothing to do with the logic, the metaphysics, or the physics, of the writers all equally trifling and absurd, but only with such passages in their writings as related to the being, the attributes, and the providence of God, their sentiments concerning the human soul, and especially its destination after death, and their

general

general principles of morals. For with these subjects only could they be brought into comparison with the doctrines of the scriptures. Also, my comparison extended no farther than till christianity became the religion of the Roman Emperors. For after this the tenets of the philosophers and those of the christians were strangely mixed, so that it might be said they borrowed from each other. I have therefore confined myself to the period in which they were entirely separate. For though after the promulgation of christianity the heathen philosophers had sufficient opportunity of acquainting themselves with its principles, they appear to have been entirely ignorant of them, or to have given little attention to them. This appears to me to have been the case with Marcus Antoninus, and others who lived long enough after the time of Christ. If they had any know ledge of christian principles, their bias was rather against than in favour of them.

There are several subdivisions of the Grecian hilosophers which I have not noticed, but they were such as made only some small variation in some of the general systems of which I have given a particular account. The most considerable of them were Sceptics, and the Academics; but they advanced

a v.

advanced nothing new, and only doubted, and disputed, in different ways about thepositions of others. For a more particular account of all the Grecian philosophers than it was to my purpose to give, I refer the reader to the excellent History of Philosophy by Dr. Enfield, most judiciously compiled from the elaborate work of Brucker. As the suntiments of the Grecian philosophers have been represented very differently, by writers who had different views in characterizing them, I thought it necessary to give numerous extracts from their own works; so that the reader may be confident that I have not made any mistake of importance in my account of them.

I once thought of adding another part, on the sentiments of Cicero, for though he was the founder of no sect, he was well acquainted with the principles of them all, and no doubt made his selection of those which he most approved. But besides that there is nothing of his own in any thing he has advanced on the several subjects, it is not easy to ascertain what his real sentiments were. His preference may in general be pretty well distinguished among the different speakers in his dialogues; but it was too great an object with him to embellish whatever he undertook to defend; so

that

that there is often more of the orator, than of the philosopher, even in his philosophical works.

I can by no means persuade myself to think so highly of the religious sentiments of Cicero, and of their having been the real principles of his conduct, as Dr. Middleton does. He gives him every thing that is most essential in christianity, or what was by himself thought to be so; and among the rest a belief in the immortality of the soul, and its separate existence in a state of happiness or misery after death; whereas he expressly says there could hardly be found a foolish old woman who feared what had formerly been believed of the dreadful things in the shades below. De Natura deorum. (Lib. ii. cap. 2.) Yet on this subject, among others, Middleton says. (Life of Cicero Vol. iii. p 240.)" that Cicero has largely and "clearly declared his mind in many parts, of his "writings." Any person, however, may see in Dr. Middleton's work a large account of what is contained in the writings of Cicero on this subject; and to this elaborate, entertaining, and truly valuable work I refer the reader.

I have little doubt, but that the opinion expressed by Cæsar, in his speech, as given by Sallust, in

the